Ticomaya wrote:Are you serious? "Tendentious" means: "Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan."
You fail to see the difference by quoting a word you claimed I used, which I didn't, and which has an entirely different meaning from any of the words I did use? You fail to see the difference it makes? Really?
No, you are quite right: I misinterpreted your use of the word "tendency". Correction noted, once again.
The difference I was failing to see - but I shouldnt have conflated the two points in one sentence - is not between your use of the word "tendency" and my erroneous interpretation of it. The difference I fail to see is between accusing me of "tenuous", "colored" and "misremembered" "false memories", as you apparently did mean to do, and accusing me of "tenuous", "colored", "misremembered"
and "tendentious" "false memories", as I wrongly claimed you did.
Ticomaya wrote:While I have discussed the "achievements" of Republican candidates and elected officials, I have also discussed the "failings" of Republican candidates.
Where, where, where - how can I have missed all those instances? Tell me more!
Ticomaya wrote:For that matter, I have discussed the "achievements" and merits of Democrat candidates and electeds
About this too!
Ticomaya wrote:I'm trying to follow your logic, nimh, but I'm confused. Maybe you can help me out with a few points:
Did Tom Kean have an opponent in the Republican primary? If so, was Kean my candidate in the Primary, or did I support the loser?
And when David Duke (google him if you are unfamiliar) campaigned for office of US Senate, and President, I believe he did so on the Republican ticket. Was he also my candidate? Or would he only have become "my" candidate if he won the primary?
I think if you identify yourself as a Republican, as you did again in this thread, it is not all too wild to describe the candidates that your party puts up for election as, in principle, your candidates, no.
Of course this holds less true the lower a candidate's office - what have you to do with a school board member in Idaho - but for the candidates your party puts up for the national Senate? Seems matter of par enough, as long as you havent specified that
this specific Republican, you dont agree with.
Note that those candidates your party have put up for the Senate have not, in fact, included David Duke. And my praise goes to the Republican Party for not having crossed that bridge - and indeed, for having barred him, if I remember correctly, from further runs as a Republican. Apparently it
is considered a (bad) reflection on the entire Republican Party - on Republicans, period - if an individual nominated candidate in one or the other state is a man like that.
Ticomaya wrote:Side question, because I'm unsure to what lengths your logic will go: If Duke was "my" candidate, does that make me a rascist, or a supporter of the KKK?
If your party would put up a man like Duke as its official candidate for national office and you would not, as registered Republican, explicitly distance yourself from that, I would certainly find that troublesome.
Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Going after my use of the word "your" when I pointed that out, I suppose, is one way to distract from that rather typical attempt at spin. Succeeded, too.
How is that "spin," nimh? That was your entire point, I thought: That Kean was "my" candidate. That is the point I thought we've been discussing, and the point to which I've taken issue. How can you characterize that as "spin"?
Again you have perhaps skimmed my post too fast, and missed the point. Your spin in question was to pretend that Kean was just a NJ state senator in order to belittle his importance - conveniently ignoring the fact that he is
also a particularly high-profile Republican candidate for the national Senate.
Ticomaya wrote:Now, if you now try to slip out of this discussion by claiming you didn't actually really mean that he was "my" candidate, THAT would be a fine example of spin.
It would, indeed. But not really my style.
Ticomaya wrote:I never said you happiliy accepted snideness from your own side, but you don't seem to have a problem with snideness from your own side being directed towards those on the other side.
Huh? I thought I had been quite explicit already, I'm sorry I have to spell it out: I have several times criticized Blatham - as I fiercely criticized Tartarin, as well, and others too - for being snide to
the other side.
What instances did you
think I was talking about? Blatham is unfailingly polite to those on his own side, so
obviously I was talking about instances of his demeanour to those on the other. It's been a bone of contention between us at least a handful of times. It is exactly the camps-mentality sniping between "us" and "them" that I long made it a point to criticize, because I thought it so pointless.
However, I must admit to seeing ever less a point in doing so. It is a wasted effort, and not only because we have ever new liberal dimwits coming in (and, on a distinct note, I will never convince Blatham either). Also because people like you on the other side have such an extremely selective perspective that you end up saying stuff like this here, after apparently ignoring or deciding to forget a dozen posts of mine you must have come across proving the opposite. Because even
should a liberal strive to choose a more substantive style, plenty of you on the other side would prefer to ignore it, in order to keep on pretending that, you know, all those liberals are bitter, mad and made for losing.
Whats the bloody point, in face of that? Why even take the dialogue, or what passes for it, seriously at all, barring the odd excepted individual poster?
Thats therefore what I have been doing - I find myself just increasingly unable to take the more scornful, partisan stuff like yours seriously. With that, I readily admit, has come a loss of dignified demeanour, and to some extent a mirroring of your exact behaviour. But on the other hand I've gained a lot of extra time that I used to spend on earnest discussion with rabid rightwingers to spend on having fun instead.
